10 December 2002
Hyde: Good U.S.-China Relations Require Clarity, Directness
(Congressman's speech at Tsinghua University, China) (4140)
It is important that the United States and China clearly and frankly
state their positions and acknowledge differences in order to maintain
good relations between the two nations, according to Representative
Henry Hyde (Republican of Illinois).
Hyde, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee,
offered that advice in remarks at Tsinghua University December 10.
Hyde listed three areas of possible disagreement between the world's
most powerful nation and the world's most populous.
Trade, Taiwan, and human rights were the subjects most likely to
create differences between a democratic United States and
communist-ruled China, he said.
On the issue of trade, Hyde cited the growing U.S. trade deficit with
China, "already the largest in history and amounting to more than half
a trillion dollars over the last two decades."
He noted that China's modernization "simply could not have proceeded
at its remarkable pace without this source of capital and our
determination to keep our markets open."
Regarding human rights, Hyde said that the people of the United States
believe that the principles on which America was founded "are
universal, and that they are inherent rights for Americans and
non-Americans alike."
To hold those beliefs, he added, is to believe that "one cannot be
indifferent to events in other countries," and that an abuse of human
rights, wherever it may occur, is "a violation of our common
humanity."
Hyde told his audience that there is strong support for Taiwan in the
Congress because America and Taiwan "are both democracies."
After many years and great struggle, he went on, "the people on Taiwan
have established a stable and vibrant democracy."
Taiwan's achievement, Hyde continued, "is praiseworthy for many
reasons, perhaps the most important being the simple fact that it has
become a true and functioning democracy, one in which peaceful
transfers of power as the result of elections - the ultimate proof of
a functioning democracy - are a demonstrated reality.
America's experience in the last century, he added, "has been such
that we instinctively align ourselves with democracies around the
world and understand that our fates are bound together."
For that reason, he said, "Taiwan's attainment of real democracy has
established a deep and enduring bond between it and the United
States."
Hyde also raised the subject of North Korea, saying he considered the
country to be "of immediate concern."
"The dangers posed by the despotic and seemingly irrational regime in
North Korea require action on our part, but a workable scenario has
yet to be identified," Hyde said.
The recent admission by North Korea's communist rulers that, contrary
to agreements, they have continued "to develop nuclear and other
weapons has demonstrated the bankruptcy of our previous approach even
as this revelation has generated a new urgency of its own," he said.
There is the question, he continued, of what should be done regarding
North Korea's "continuing economic collapse" and "the many dangers
that would be posed by the regime's chaotic end."
"Previously, it is likely that the United States would have assumed
the sole responsibility for handling this problem. But our hope and
expectation is that, given its considerable influence with Pyongyang,
(the Chinese) government's active cooperation will be forthcoming in
developing and implementing a satisfactory solution," Hyde said.
Following is the text of Representative Henry Hyde's prepared remarks
for delivery December 10 at Tsinghua University, China:
(begin text)
Hon. Henry J. Hyde Remarks to the Tsinghua University
regarding the relationship between the United States and China
Remarks by The Honorable Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Tsinghua University
December 10, 2002
The subject of my remarks today is the relationship between the United
States and China, both in the present day and in the future. My
intention is to speak plainly because I believe that clarity and
directness are essential elements in the establishment and maintenance
of good relations between our two countries.
I would also like to say that, although my responsibilities are, of
necessity, focused on the interests of the United States, and although
I would not presume to speak for China, my statements and thoughts
regarding your country are done in the context of great respect and a
sincere affection for its people and are made in the knowledge that we
will share this planet for a long time to come.
Let me begin with a simple and obvious statement. China's rapidly
growing strength and influence in the world community will be one of
the central determinants of the evolution of the 21st Century. Let me
add to that another self-evident statement: No one knows what these
changes will mean for relations between our two countries.
To admit our lack of knowledge is not to confess that we are helpless,
nor must we resign ourselves to an unpredictable fate.
It is, in fact, a recognition of the exact opposite. For although we
must find our way through a maze of possibilities, and contend with
suspicion and the uncertainties of many surprises, our relationship
will in fact be the result of the choices we jointly make.
We will not be able to proclaim our innocence or ignorance, nor
pretend that it is not we who have decided it so.
For over two decades, the world has watched as China's long-postponed
rush toward modernization has gathered momentum. Rapid change has
become the rule in every sphere of national life, from the economic
and political to the social and cultural.
And with every accomplishment has come ever more expanded
possibilities and the enhanced capacity to make them real. This
transformation is unparalleled in scale and has rarely been equaled in
ambition or speed.
The change is so great and so rapid that, to those observing it from
the outside, it seems as though the entire country is living through a
revolution. It is as if we were watching a new world coming into
being.
I can hardly imagine how it must seem to those who are experiencing
these changes directly. Whatever its ultimate outcome may prove to be,
the result cannot but have a major impact on the world.
It is appropriate, then, that we ponder its consequences for relations
between our two countries. I single out our relationship not merely
because I am an American speaking to a Chinese audience, but because
the relationship between the United States and China is already one of
the most important on the planet.
And it may one day become the most important.
Let me begin with the present. Our two countries start from very
different places, different experiences, different expectations. China
has been inward-turned for much of the last century, and only recently
has it begun to resume a greater role in the international system to
which its prominence and accomplishments entitle it.
That international system is one in which the United States has been
the principal actor for over half a century and for which it has
assumed the principal responsibility for defending.
The United States has done more than simply exercise influence,
however. It has fundamentally reshaped that system into one which I
believe has brought unprecedented prosperity, peace, and security to
many regions of the world.
Europe has been transformed from a war-ravaged continent of implacable
hatreds into one where peace, cooperation, and prosperity are now
regarded as natural conditions requiring little effort to maintain.
A similar, although less complete, transformation has taken place in
East Asia, where the increasingly prosperous, peaceful, and
cooperative region of today - one that I am pleased to say is also
populated by an ever-growing number of democracies - stands in
dramatic contrast to that of the 1930s and 1940s.
To speak of this transformation is not to arrogate to the United
States the sole credit for its unfolding. Ultimately, the fate of each
country has to be decided by that country itself, for prosperity and
stability cannot be granted by another, nor long imposed.
The key contribution of the United States has been to help bring into
being and maintain over many decades the nurturing international and
regional contexts which have allowed these beneficent changes to take
place.
Without this, those changes would have been exceedingly difficult to
accomplish, if they could have been accomplished at all. I admit to
viewing these and other developments from an American perspective, but
I believe it to be a true, honest, and accurate one nonetheless.
And I believe that it is a record in which my country should take
great pride. By virtue of its strength and its role in the
international system, then, to deal with the international system is
to deal with the United States.
For China, the present-day international system is largely one in
which it has played little role in constructing. This is especially
important when one remembers that for a long time, the Chinese people
suffered the injustice of being acted on by outside powers who were
indifferent to their rights and well-being and often openly hostile to
both.
As a result of China's weakness, war was forced upon them, along with
great suffering and destruction. China's growing strength has meant
that a return to that period of weakness is ever-receding. And China
is now expanding its presence in the international system, this time
not on the terms of others, but on those of its own and guided by its
own interests.
Given this, how likely is it that, in the future, China's foreign
policy goals will differ significantly from those of the United
States?
This is not an abstract question, as there are several areas in which
the U.S. and China have overlapping interests, including Central Asia,
the Indian subcontinent, and Russia's vast expanse.
But the most salient of these is East Asia, where the United States
has exercised a preponderant influence since World War II and where
China is now beginning to reassert her own.
Both countries profess to having the same goals for the region, namely
continued peace, stability, cooperation, and prosperity. If this is in
fact the case, China is entering a system in which those interests are
already ensured.
Thus, in theory, China's increasing presence should produce little
change beyond an increasing prominence in the region's councils.
Why, then, do so many voices in both countries assume that,
fundamentally, the two countries are strategic rivals and destined to
clash, with the increase in influence by one necessitating a
diminution in that of the other?
It is certainly true that those planning for a nation's security and
defending its interests have a responsibility to consider all
possibilities, both positive and negative, and to make reasonable
preparations for an uncertain future.
But we must remember that these are just that - possibilities - and
not pre-ordained outcomes. Unless, that is, we begin acting as though
they are. But neither can good relations be built on hopeful
illusions, for these will inevitably be exposed as such. Security must
be our starting point.
Only in the knowledge that one has truly secured one's interests is
trust then possible, and it will remain as fragile as a single
misperception. But these necessary preparations pose a danger of their
own, which is that one country will view the other's reasonable
precautions as evidence of hostile intent.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, there is only one way to
avoid that outcome, and that is to ensure that there is an ongoing and
frank discussion of each country's goals and rationales.
Far from avoiding frankness out of a fear of offending, we should
instead recognize it for what it is - the prerequisite for good
relations. Assuming a genuine desire on both sides, the list of areas
where cooperation can produce mutually beneficial results is as long
as we would wish to make it, including such newly urgent areas as
terrorism and the need to limit the further spread of weapons and
instruments of mass destruction.
As a sign of the need for increased cooperation regarding shared
dangers, I am very pleased to note that the United States' Agency for
International Development has inaugurated a new and innovative program
in China that is designed to help your country cope with the growing
problem of AIDS.
We in the United States and the world have faced this implacable
epidemic for many years, and we hope by our assistance to help you
avoid many of the tragedies experienced elsewhere in the world.
A subject that is of immediate concern is North Korea. The dangers
posed by the despotic and seemingly irrational regime in North Korea
require action on our part, but a workable scenario has yet to be
identified. The regime's recent admission that, contrary to its
agreements, it has continued to develop nuclear and other weapons has
demonstrated the bankruptcy of our previous approach even as this
revelation has generated a new urgency of its own.
Added to that is the question of what we should do regarding that
country's continuing economic collapse, ranging from the humanitarian
impulse to feed millions faced with starvation to the many dangers
that would be posed by the regime's chaotic end.
Previously, it is likely that the United States would have assumed the
sole responsibility for handling this problem. But our hope and
expectation is that, given its considerable influence with Pyongyang,
your government's active cooperation will be forthcoming in developing
and implementing a satisfactory solution.
The incentives to do so already exist and are growing. As you are well
aware, China has begun to directly experience the first tremors of
this approaching earthquake, as seen in the increasing number of
refugees fleeing from North Korea and the problems this has created in
China's relations with the international community.
The areas of potential cooperation are easy to identify.
Where, then, do the problems lie?
Here, even a short list must inevitably seem a lengthy one. Among the
most prominent are trade disputes, protection for intellectual
property, human rights concerns, and arms sales.
These problems are the source of numerous daily frictions that, over
time, can wear away the firmest foundation. Significant differences
intrude even in those areas in which we have already recognized a need
to cooperate, such as terrorism. Each of these issues could be the
subject of an extensive discussion.
Let me briefly comment on three that are likely to persist.
The first concerns trade. Here, there are many disputes. China's
adaptation to a market economy and its entry into the World Trade
Organization pose many challenges of their own. One of the most
pressing is that of intellectual property rights. I am concerned that
China is not in compliance with its international obligations and that
its WTO membership has yet to have much influence on the production of
counterfeit goods.
That market is estimated by China's own officials to be worth at least
$16 billion, making up between 15 and 20 percent of all products made
in China. Often unnoted, but surely a concern of the not-too-distant
future, is the United States' growing trade deficit with China,
already the largest in history and amounting to more than half a
trillion dollars over the last two decades.
China's modernization simply could not have proceeded at its
remarkable pace without this source of capital and our determination
to keep our markets open.
My hope is that China will demonstrate a similar resolve. Of course,
the United States receives many benefits from our increasingly close
economic relationship, as does China, but we must understand that
disputes are likely to increase, not decrease, as our two economies
draw closer.
A joint commitment to the rules of free trade and to the obligations
undertaken by international agreement is the only way to ensure that
these remain manageable. Each country has an enormous and growing
stake in the continued economic health of the other and a joint
interest in the preservation of the international economic system that
makes possible continued growth and mutual prosperity.
A more difficult aspect of our relationship is the subject of human
rights. As Americans, we believe that the principles on which our
country was founded are universal, and that they are inherent rights
for Americans and non-Americans alike.
To hold these beliefs is also to believe that one cannot be
indifferent to events in other countries.
Human rights abuses are a violation of our common humanity, wherever
they occur.
Some declare that, regardless of our motives, this is an unacceptable
interference by the U.S. in the affairs of other countries.
A more sinister motivation is often imputed, including a depiction of
our actions and statements in purely cynical terms as the means for
sowing discord and opposition within our competitors.
One thing is absolutely certain: The United States - its people and
its government - will continue to make human rights a prominent
component of its foreign policy, regardless of what the practitioners
of Realpolitik would advise.
It would be a profound mistake to conclude that these are irrelevant
concerns for us or that we will desist from expressing our concern
about them.
Of course, the problem with the greatest potential for
misunderstanding, and even for potential conflict, is Taiwan.
I do not raise this subject because I believe that I can persuade
anyone in this audience to change their opinion. Nor do I believe that
I can propose a mutually satisfying solution on such an important
issue.
There may, in fact, not be one. If true, that in itself would be an
important recognition and one that we should face directly. Our
differing positions on this issue are a matter of record.
But if we are to avoid making decisions that we will regret, it is
important that we fully understand each other's position, regardless
of how much we may disagree with it.
The need for clarity is greatest in those situations in which
disagreement is sharpest.
Many in China, sensitive to what they regard as a long series of
foreign intrusions on Chinese soil, understandably view the situation
regarding Taiwan from this perspective.
Close U.S. ties with the island are regarded as inherently negative
and incompatible with a positive relationship between our two
countries.
With an eye toward reducing misperceptions, let me briefly address
some views of the problem that can easily distort judgments. I am
aware that some in your country depict our long-term involvement in
Taiwan as motivated by its role in what is imagined to be an American
policy of "containing" China.
However, I must point out that there are no U.S. military bases on the
island, nor am I aware of any plans, public or private, on our part to
use the island as an element in any larger plan of domination of the
region.
To the contrary, our energies and hopes are focused on a peaceful
resolution of the many issues involved.
I am also aware that some in your country have accused the U.S. of
wanting to partition China as a way of dealing with what it supposedly
views as a growing strategic challenge.
Yet I am unaware of anyone at any level of our government who has
advanced this as a goal, even as a basis for an abstract discussion. I
have no hesitation in dismissing it as absurd.
Nor is the United States motivated by any predatory economic
interests. Although our economic ties to the island are very strong,
those with the PRC are even stronger and are growing ever more so.
Because we have a fundamental belief in free markets and in an open
trading system, we understand that there is nothing to be gained by
attempting to wall off for ourselves protected markets or privileged
access to any country.
Our fundamental tie to Taiwan is more substantial than these supposed
motivations. We are both democracies. After many years and great
struggle, the people on Taiwan have established a stable and vibrant
democracy.
This is not a foreign system imposed by an outside power. It is the
product of decades of effort by the Taiwanese people themselves.
Taiwan's achievement is praiseworthy for many reasons, perhaps the
most important being the simple fact that it has become a true and
functioning democracy, one in which peaceful transfers of power as the
result of elections - the ultimate proof of a functioning democracy -
are a demonstrated reality.
But it has a significance that extends far beyond its own shores.
Because it is a Chinese democracy. I can well remember when such a
thing was prophesied to be an impossibility, when the received wisdom
was that democracy and Chinese culture could never be combined, that
both would be forever foreign to the other.
But Taiwan's experience has demonstrated that that view was simply
mistaken and without merit.
There need be no cultural barriers to the spread of democracy, and
peoples in countries whose histories have no record of democracy can,
nevertheless, achieve it for themselves.
This is a simple message, yet one of profound importance for the
entire world. It is one of special significance for Americans, for as
I have stated previously, we believe that the principles upon which
our country are founded are universal ones.
As Americans, we also believe ourselves to be the natural friend and
even protector of democracies around the world.
Our experience in the last century has been such that we instinctively
align ourselves with democracies around the world and understand that
our fates are bound together.
For that reason, Taiwan's attainment of real democracy has established
a deep and enduring bond between it and the United States. I know from
personal experience that the bedrock of the very strong support for
Taiwan in the U.S. Congress is that of shared democracy.
And I know that that support will continue undiminished.
This list of our areas of agreement and disagreement is not an
exhaustive one, but it is certainly illustrative of the many
substantive issues with which we must deal. It is essential to both of
our countries, as well as to the wider world, that we get this
relationship right.
But we cannot allow our hopes to displace sober analysis. Good
relations will not be handed to us as a gift or as a reward for
virtue. They are something that we must construct ourselves, by
conscious choice from the options before us.
That sounds deceptively simple - who, after all, would not want good
relations?
But the great danger we face is to assume that a positive outcome is
easy to achieve, and that it is foreordained simply because it is
necessary and desirable. Instead, we should begin by realizing that it
is not a single, grand, final choice that we need to make but a
never-ending series of choices that must be made while passing through
an uncharted terrain of difficult tasks, easy temptations, and the
enveloping fog of suspicion.
Although we cannot escape from the incessant demands of the
ever-shouting present, neither can we allow these to deafen us to the
softer voice of our long-term interests.
For it is only with the counsel of the latter that we can hope to
guide ourselves to safety and security.
In January 1979, Deng Xiaoping made an historic visit to the United
States. When he came to Washington, he chose to lay a wreath at the
memorial of our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln.
Because I am from Illinois, which claims a special connection with
Lincoln, I was invited to stand as a member of the Honor Guard for the
occasion.
It is appropriate to refer to Mr. Lincoln. In his first inaugural
address, facing the prospect of civil war, he posed the issue in
direct terms, appealing to his countrymen north and south to remember
their many bonds and enduring interests and warning them that to allow
these to be obscured by the passions of the present would be to bring
down certain destruction upon themselves and their country.
They did not heed his words, and the conflict he worked so hard to
prevent nevertheless came. We must always remind ourselves that our
fate is not handed to us; we create it for ourselves. We are not the
passive citizens of history; we are its architects.
Your country has endured for over 5000 years, ours for little more
than two centuries. Vast differences separate us, yet in the end, will
it be said that our two peoples were so different that their true
interests ultimately had to clash?
If we are adversaries, we can do little to improve the lives and
fortunes of our countrymen, to say nothing of those of East Asia and
the world beyond. We would be certain to discover how easy it is to do
harm to us all.
But if we can sustain cooperation, if our common interests can be made
to encompass our differences, the realm of the possible would extend
beyond measure, and we shall grace our age with wonders.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
